ECT DID JESUS TEACH SOLA SCRIPTURA?

[Cruciform]

The Lord's Jesus' words here mean just what they say. Those to whom He gives eternal life SHALL NEVER PERISH:

Unfortunately for your assumptions, this is not the only biblical text that discusses the subject of salvific assurance. Others are discussed in the sources cited in Post #398 above.

Please tell me Rome's preferred interpretation of these verses, especially John 10:28.

The protection that Jesus provides for his sheep is equivalent to the Father's divine protection (Jn. 10:29). This means, from the perspective of the Old Testament, that Christ wields the sovereign power of Yahweh to shield the righteous from the threats of their enemies (Deut. 32:39; Is. 43:13).

I contend that average individuals can understand the word of God and in most cases even better that the Church at Rome.

Answered---and corrected---here and here.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The protection that Jesus provides for his sheep is equivalent to the Father's divine protection (Jn. 10:29). This means, from the perspective of the Old Testament, that Christ wields the sovereign power of Yahweh to shield the righteous from the threats of their enemies (Deut. 32:39; Is. 43:13).

Surely you can do better than that!

Are we supposed to believe that these words are merely speaking of being shielding the righteous from their enemies:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (Jn.3:16).​

The Greek word translated "perish" means":

"The idea is not extinction but ruin, loss, not of being, but of well-being" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).​

If a person could possible lose their salvation then this definition would certainly describe their new condition. But the Lord Jesus said that those to whom He gives eternal life will never perish.

According to Rome they can!

 

[Angel4Truth]

The glaring fact is that you have no idea whatsoever whether or not Catholic teaching is "nonsense," since you have yet to engage in the necessary study of the primary Catholic material to understand it sufficiently or accurately. You're trying to apply the label "nonsense" to something of which you have virtually no real comprehension. In this way, you're hardly displaying the hunger for truth and intellectual honestly required of a faithful believer. As you like, however.


I already have. You, however, didn't "like" the answer, instead preferring the interpretations and opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. (See above.)



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

No, you posted a link, thats called link dropping, if i were a mod i would have banned you off here a long time ago for it. Other people who do it are warned then banned after being told that this is a discussion board and the vast majority of conversations with you, consist of just links, with no real response.

I quote the bible, so show me your biblical response to it, not what your church thinks about it, if i wanted a conversation with them, i would ask THEM, not you.

 

[Cruciform]

Surely you can do better than that!

No need.

Are we supposed to believe that these words are merely speaking of being shielding the righteous from their enemies: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (Jn.3:16).

Yes, Catholics hold to all of the same biblical texts that you do---just not according to the opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. Again, this is not the only verse in the Bible. Back to the cited sources in Post #398 above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

No, you posted a link, thats called link dropping, if i were a mod i would have banned you off here a long time ago for it.

Your glaring inability to in any way actually disprove or refute the doctrinal content of my cited source is noted.

...the vast majority of conversations with you, consist of just links, with no real response.

A straightforwardly false claim on your part. Try again.

I quote the bible, so show me your biblical response to it...

Already did (Post #396).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The protection that Jesus provides for his sheep is equivalent to the Father's divine protection (Jn. 10:29). This means, from the perspective of the Old Testament, that Christ wields the sovereign power of Yahweh to shield the righteous from the threats of their enemies (Deut. 32:39; Is. 43:13).

So does the Lord Jesus always shield the righteous from the threats of their enemies? That must be what Rome teaches since the Lord Jesus says that "they shall never perish."

But how do you explain the fact that the Bible shows that the righteous do not always receive the divine protection?:

"And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth" (Rev.18:23-24).​

According to Rome's ideas the Lord words that "they shall never perish" must mean that the righteous will always have divine protection but what we see at Revelation 18:24 proves that Rome is wrong.

 

[Cruciform]

So does the Lord Jesus always shield the righteous from the threats of their enemies? That must be what Rome teaches since the Lord Jesus says that "they shall never perish."

Your questions have already been addressed in the citations in Post #398 above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Puppet]

No, you posted a link, thats called link dropping, if i were a mod i would have banned you off here a long time ago for it. Other people who do it are warned then banned after being told that this is a discussion board and the vast majority of conversations with you, consist of just links, with no real response.

I quote the bible, so show me your biblical response to it, not what your church thinks about it, if i wanted a conversation with them, i would ask THEM, not you.

The offsprings of the universal catholic church had 1500+/- years to customize thier lies to sound good to the blind men. God brought the reformation era for those that can see and hear and we returned to the bible inspired by God, not the RRC. God used men to complete the 66 book bible. The offsprings are just thieves claiming they put the bible together instead of God. RCC is not the UCC, the universal catholic church. RCC is an denomination doing their own blinded beliefs .

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Your questions have already been addressed in the citations in Post #398 above.

I just brought up the fact that Rome is obviously wrong about the meaning they put on John 10:28 so it is impossible that you have already addressed it.

If you have no answer just say so but do not say that you have already addressed it because that is impossible.

 

[OCTOBER23]

CRUCIFORM said,

Merely a False Dilemma Fallacy on your part, as though one must choose between God and the men through whom he has chosen to work (i.e., the apostles and bishops of Christ's one historic Church [Ac. 15:2, 6; 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4]).
---------------------------------------------------

SOMEBODY IS IN DENIAL

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

The offsprings of the universal catholic church had 1500+/- years to customize thier lies to sound good to the blind men. God brought the reformation era for those that can see and hear and we returned to the bible inspired by God, not the RRC. God used men to complete the 66 book bible. The offsprings are just thieves claiming they put the bible together instead of God. RCC is not the UCC, the universal catholic church. RCC is an denomination doing their own blinded beliefs .

The RCC actually isolated itself from the universal Christian church, consisting of churches in many geographies, as in churches of the Bible. Rather than a scripture church, they're more like Mormons with their Book of Mormon, the RCC their Catechism, and Rome their Salt Lake City.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

I just brought up the fact that Rome is obviously wrong about the meaning they put on John 10:28 so it is impossible that you have already addressed it.

If you have no answer just say so but do not say that you have already addressed it because that is impossible.

He's not the brightest bulb in the pack. Most things come down to, in essence, "because I say so," when he's painted into a corner. He has this ridiculous thing to simply say that Protestant churches were invented as a catch-all phrase, when he has no truth to respond with, this though you are citing scripture, which predates the corrupt RCC by hundreds of years. Very lame.

He is just being a mindless parrot of the RCC and could really use deprogramming, that is, he needs to get saved. His knowledge of his own "church" is also sketchy, any scholarship a pretense.

 

[Anto9us]

I heard that Jesus didn't teach SOLA SCRIPTURA -- but that He left a Time Capsule note about the Wesleyan Quadrilateral for Albert Outler to find later...

 

[Cruciform]

I just brought up the fact that Rome is obviously wrong about the meaning they put on John 10:28 so it is impossible that you have already addressed it. If you have no answer just say so but do not say that you have already addressed it because that is impossible.

Read it again. What I said was that your questions have already been addressed in the citations in Post #398 above. In other words, the cited sources there contain answers to your questions.

 

[Cruciform]

I heard that Jesus didn't teach SOLA SCRIPTURA -- but that He left a Time Capsule note about the Wesleyan Quadrilateral for Albert Outler to find later...

Hmmm...doubtful. :chuckle:

In fact, Jesus himself never wrote a single word of Scripture, nor did he ever command his apostles to write anything whatsoever. Rather, he instructed them to preach his message, make disciples, and administer the sacraments (Mt. 28:18-20). Apparently, writing things down wasn't at the top of the Lord's list.

Christ left behind not a book, but a historical, hierarchically-structured, visible, and organized Church (Mt. 16:18-19; 1 Tim. 3:15) through which he has authoritatively guided and infallibly taught the faithful for the past two millennia (Lk. 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15). This is the one historic Church against which Christ declared that the gates of hell would never prevail (Mt. 16:18), and which has continued down to our own day as the Catholic Church.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Puppet]

The RCC actually isolated itself from the universal Christian church, consisting of churches in many geographies, as in churches of the Bible. Rather than a scripture church, they're more like Mormons with their Book of Mormon, the RCC their Catechism, and Rome their Salt Lake City.

I went to one catholic church and it seemed to be offsprings of the RCC like new denominations being offsprung old denominations. Are there new catholic churches that doesn't report to the popes? Can you say the orthodox isolated themselves as well?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Read it again. What I said was that your questions have already been addressed in the citations in Post #398 above. In other words, the cited sources there contain answers to your questions.

You can say the same thing over and over but that does not change the fact that I demolished Rome's teaching on John 10:28.

If you do not want to defend Rome's teaching on that verse that is fine with me because anyone can see that I did in fact demolish Rome's interpretation.

 

[StanJ]

You can say the same thing over and over but that does not change the fact that I demolished Rome's teaching on John 10:28.

If you do not want to defend Rome's teaching on that verse that is fine with me because anyone can see that I did in fact demolish Rome's interpretation.

Indeed, but he lives in his own little RCC world, which apparently is resistant to truth and exegesis. They don't have eyes to see or ears to hear.

 

[moparguy]

posted image​

Because obviously, if you can't uphold something without violating cruciform's arbitrary rules, it can't be true.

1+1 will never equal 2, if there's a verse division in there and cruciform doesn't like the conclusion.

Sadly, not for many others either.

I wonder if you think that Jesus was the Wisdom of God, who is responsible for the content of the entire bible... or were peter and the other apostles just speaking/writing as their own imagination carried them along?

 

[Cruciform]

You can say the same thing over and over but that does not change the fact that I demolished Rome's teaching on John 10:28. If you do not want to defend Rome's teaching on that verse that is fine with me because anyone can see that I did in fact demolish Rome's interpretation.

Still answered in Post #398 above.